The Hindu : 'Unilateral use of force in Iraq illegal'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003

National

National

'Unilateral use of force in Iraq illegal'

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI AUG. 11. In the absence of a specific authorisation of war by the United Nations Security Council, the unilateral use of force by the United States and its allies in Iraq was `illegal', the former Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar, argued this evening.

Delivering the Eighth Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture on ``The World Order After Iraq'', he said that since the case for war on both sides of the Atlantic was heavily based on the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the non-discovery of such weapons deprives the ``case'' of its moral justification.

Mr. Kadirgamar, currently Senior Adviser to the Sri Lankan President on Foreign Affairs, stated that serious damage had been done to the U.N. as a result of the ``unilateral resort'' to force by a group of countries.

He said at the India International Centre that the ``flawed procedure'' adopted by the U.S. and Britain had raised disturbing questions regarding the credibility of the two governments.

The impact of the war on ``Islamic countries'' was problematic. ``An increase in terrorist activity as a response to the (Iraq) war cannot be ruled out. The most serious immediate development is the transformation of the Shiites, who are supposed to be most hostile to Saddam Hussein, into a resistance movement...it would appear that an Iraqi Hizbollah is being founded and trained in Lebanon.''

``Certain statements have been made in responsible quarters that indicate Syria and Iran could be targets for regime change. In that event, dangerous schisms would be created and the potential for further destabilisation of the world order would be enhanced,'' he said.

Mr. Kadirgamar, who seemed concerned at the unilateral assertion of American military power, looked at the possibility, in the medium term, of Europe, China, Russia and India emerging as a like-minded countervailing group to U.S. power.

The former Minister dealt at length with the legal case for and against the war in Iraq. He quoted approvingly the opinion of Christopher Weeramantry, former vice-president of the International Court of Justice, that the U.N. Security Council alone could authorise the use of force.

Referring to Security Council Resolution 678 of 1990, Mr. Weeramantry said that this resolution did not provide a blanket authorisation to use force for 12 years. He said that Resolution 1441 expressly stated that should there be any further material breach on the part of Iraq, the Security Council would meet again to consider the situation.

``When a phrase like `serious consequences' is used, it is only the Security Council that can interpret this language and extend it to include a specific authorisation to use force; not one of the resolutions passed by the U.N. authorises the violent overthrow of a sovereign state or the use of force outside the U.N. Charter,'' Mr. Kadirgamar quoted Mr. Weeramantry as saying.

``Disarmament and regime change are two vastly different concepts and objectives which attract vastly different principles of international law; all previous resolutions put together and interpreted in today's context do not amount to an authorisation to use force.''

``In my opinion, the avalanche of reasons given by Judge Weeramantry for his contention that the unilateral use of force in Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter and accepted principles of international law must surely sweep aside the conclusions adopted by the British Attorney-General that a specific authorising the use of force was not required after resolutions 678 and 1441.

``Again, like the intelligence debacle, is this a case of tailored legal advice to suit a predetermined, political decision. The consequences of such a possibility are extremely grave for the future,'' Mr. Kadirgamar maintained.

He also referred to the views of Robin Cook, who quit the Tony Blair Government in protest against the Iraq: ``The Iraq war has divided us from our principal partners in Europe...it has undermined the authority of the Security Council as the forum for multilateral decisions on peace and security...it has broken up the global coalition against world terrorism...''

The former Minister repeatedly referred to The Economist's reports on Iraq and the case for war. Does any nation State have the legal or moral right, unilaterally or in concert with others, to punish an entire people for their misfortune to be led by a ``deceitful liar''?

Pointing to a sense of unease, bewilderment and fear among nations, big and small, rich and poor, Mr. Kadirgamar said America had throughout its history provided a home for the oppressed in search of refuge.

``That is why so many are so disturbed that the image of a fair and just America has been shattered by the events in Iraq.''

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National